Biodiversity Agreement Historic But Difficult to Implement

While the Global Framework on Biodiversity has indicators and monitoring mechanisms and is legally binding, it has no actual teeth, and the precedent of the failed Aichi Targets casts a shadow over its future, especially with the world's poor track record on international agreements

Government delegations celebrate the close of the historic negotiation at COP15 of the New Global Framework on Biodiversity in the early hours of the morning on Monday Dec. 19, at the Palais des Congrès in Montreal, Canada. CREDIT: Mike Muzurakis/IISD

By Emilio Godoy
MONTREAL, Dec 19 2022 – The pillar coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus), which takes its name from its shape, is found throughout the Caribbean Sea, but its population has declined by more than 80 percent since 1990. As a result, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed it as “critically endangered” due to the effects of the human-induced climate crisis.

Its fate now depends on the new Kunming-Montreal Global Framework on Biodiversity, which was agreed by the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on Monday Dec. 19, at the end of the summit held since Dec. 7 at the Palais des Congrès in Montreal.

Now, the world’s countries must translate the results into national biodiversity strategies, to comply with the new accord. In this regard, David Ainsworth, spokesman for the CBD, in force since 1993 and based in Montreal, announced the creation of a global accelerator for the drafting of national plans, with the support of U.N. agencies.

COP15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity approved a new program to protect the world's natural heritage for the next 10 years during the summit held in the Canadian city of Montreal. The picture shows a statue of a polar bear, whose species is threatened by melting ice and habitat loss, on a street in Montreal. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy/IPS

COP15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity approved a new program to protect the world’s natural heritage for the next 10 years during the summit held in the Canadian city of Montreal. The picture shows a statue of a polar bear, whose species is threatened by melting ice and habitat loss, on a street in Montreal. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy/IPS

The menu of agreements

COP15, whose theme was “Ecological Civilization: Building a shared future for all life on earth”, approved four objectives on improving the status of biodiversity, reducing species extinction, fair and appropriate sharing of benefits from access to and use of genetic resources, and means of implementation of the agreement.

In addition, the plenary of the summit, which brought together some 15,000 people representing governments, non-governmental organizations, academia, international bodies and companies, agreed on 23 goals within the Global Framework, for the conservation and management of 30 percent of terrestrial areas and 30 percent of marine areas by 2030, in what is known in U.N. jargon as the 30×30.

This includes the complete or partial restoration of at least 30 percent of degraded terrestrial and marine ecosystems, as well as the reduction of the loss of areas of high biological importance to almost zero.

Likewise, the agreement reached by the 196 States Parties at COP15 includes the halving of food waste, the elimination or reform of at least 500 billion dollars a year in subsidies harmful to biodiversity, and at least 200 billion dollars in funding for biodiversity by 2030 from public and private sources.

It also endorsed increasing financial transfers from countries of the industrialized North to nations of the developing South by at least 20 billion dollars by 2025 and 30 billion dollars by 2030, and the voluntary publication by companies for monitoring, evaluation and disclosure of the impact of their activities on biodiversity.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) will manage a new fund, whose operation will be defined by the countries over the next two years.

With regard to digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources, the Global Framework stipulates the establishment of a multilateral fund for benefit-sharing between providers and users of genetic resources and states that governments will define the final figure at COP16 in Turkey in 2024.

The Global Framework also contains gender and youth perspectives, two strong demands of the process that was initially scheduled to end in the city of Kunming, China, in 2020. But because that country was unable to host mass meetings due to its zero-tolerance policy towards COVID-19, a first virtual chapter was held there and another later in person, and the final one now took place in Montreal.

The states parties are required to report at least every five years on their national compliance with the Global Framework. The CBD will include national information submitted in February 2026 and June 2029 in its status and trend reports.

With some differences, civil society organizations and indigenous peoples gave a nod to the Global Framework, but issued warnings. Viviana Figueroa, representative of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, and Simone Lovera, policy director of the Global Forest Coalition, applauded the agreement in conversations with IPS, while pointing out its risks.

“It’s a good step forward, because it recognizes the role of indigenous peoples, the use of biodiversity and the role of traditional knowledge,” said Figueroa, an Omaguaca indigenous lawyer from Argentina whose organization brings together indigenous groups from around the world to present their positions at international environmental meetings.

“It has been a long process, to which native peoples have contributed and have made proposals. The most important aspects that we proposed have been recognized and we hope to work together with the countries,” she added.

But, she remarked, “the most important thing will be the implementation.”

Goal C and targets one, three, five, nine, 13, 21 and 22 of the Global Framework relate to respect for the rights of native and local communities.

Lovera, whose organization brings together NGOs and indigenous groups, said the accord “recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and of women. It also includes a recommendation to withdraw subsidies and reduce public and private investments in destructive activities, such as large-scale cattle ranching and oil palm monoculture.”

But indigenous and human rights organizations have questioned the 30×30 approach on the grounds that it undermines ancestral rights, blocks access to aboriginal territories, and requires consultation and unpressured, informed consent for protected areas prior to any decision on the future of those areas.

Discussions at the Convention on Biological Diversity summit intensified in the last few days of COP15 and ran late into the night, as in this session on health and biodiversity. But in the end, agreement was reached on a new Global Framework on Biodiversity, which will be binding on the 196 states parties. CREDIT: IISD/ENB

Discussions at the Convention on Biological Diversity summit intensified in the last few days of COP15 and ran late into the night, as in this session on health and biodiversity. But in the end, agreement was reached on a new Global Framework on Biodiversity, which will be binding on the 196 states parties. CREDIT: IISD/ENB

Major challenge

While the Global Framework has indicators and monitoring mechanisms and is legally binding, it has no actual teeth, and the precedent of the failed Aichi Targets casts a shadow over its future, especially with the world’s poor track record on international agreements.

The Aichi Biodiversity Targets, adopted in 2010 in that Japanese city during the CBD’s COP10 and which its 196 states parties failed to meet in 2020, included the creation of terrestrial and marine protected areas; the fight against pollution and invasive species; respect for indigenous knowledge; and the restoration of damaged ecosystems.

Several estimates put the amount needed to protect biological heritage at 700 billion dollars, which means there is still an enormous gap to be closed.

In more than 30 years, the GEF has disbursed over 22 billion dollars and helped transfer another 120 billion dollars to more than 5,000 regional and national projects. For the new period starting in 2023, the fund is counting on some five billion dollars in financing.

In addition, the Small Grants Program has supported around 27,000 community initiatives in developing countries.

“There is little public funding, more is needed,” Lovera said. “It’s sad that they say the private sector must fund biodiversity. In indigenous territories money is needed. They can do much more than governments with less money. Direct support can be more effective and they will meet the commitments.”

The activist also criticized the use of offsets, a mechanism whereby one area can be destroyed and another can be restored elsewhere – already used in countries such as Chile, Colombia and Mexico.

“This system allows us to destroy 70 percent of the planet while preserving the other 30 percent,” Lovera said. “It is madness. For indigenous peoples and local communities, it is very negative, because they lose their own biodiversity and the compensation is of no use to them, because it happens somewhere else.”

Figueroa said institutions that already manage funds could create direct mechanisms for indigenous peoples, as is the case with the Small Grants Program.

Of the 609 commitments that organizations, companies and individuals have already made voluntarily at COP15, 303 are aimed at the conservation and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems, 188 at alliances, and 159 at adaptation to climate change and reduction of polluting emissions.

The summit also coincided with the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the 4th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from their Utilization, both components of the CBD.

Images of the planet’s sixth mass extinction reflect the size of the challenge. More than a quarter of some 150,000 species on the IUCN Red List are threatened with extinction.

The “Living Planet Report 2022: Building a nature-positive society”, prepared by the WWF and the Institute of Zoology in London, shows that Latin America and the Caribbean has experienced the largest decline in monitored wildlife populations worldwide, with an average decline of 94 percent between 1970 and 2018.

With a decade to act, each passing day represents more biological wealth lost.

IPS produced this article with support from InternewsEarth Journalism Network.

Migrants? ‘Don’t You Dare Come Here, Unless…’

"There is no migration crisis; there is a crisis of solidarity" says UN Secretary-General, António Guterres. Credit: Credit: UNOHCR

“There is no migration crisis; there is a crisis of solidarity” says UN Secretary-General, António Guterres. Credit: Credit: UNOHCR

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Dec 19 2022 – When tens of thousands of Europeans had to flee the horrors of two born-in-Europe devastating armed conflicts that attracted other powers: the World Wars I and II, they migrated to the Americas and other Western countries in search of safe haven.

Upon their arrival at their destination, they were checked at the border and admitted to enter as useful workforce.

Seldom, if ever, anybody classified them as “illegal” migrants. Those human beings were fleeing the horrors of those wars.

Due to persistent lack of safe and regular migration pathways, millions continue to take perilous journeys each year. Since 2014 more than 50,000 migrants have lost their lives on migratory routes across the world

Now that millions of people are forced to flee the horrors not only of wars but also of additional waves of devastation, from a climate emergency they did not create to a train of world’s financial crisis originated in and by the world’s most industrialised -and richest- powers, these migrants are classified as “illegal.”

There have been different approaches to get around what the right to far-right political parties in Europe, the United States, Australia, among several others, call “invasion,” a “threat to our civilisation,” “our democracy,” and “our religion,” let alone that they represent a “high risk of terrorism.”

Here, there is an open message from the rich West to these poor migrants: ‘don’t you dare come here, unless….’

  • Unless you bring money: in the aftermath of the 2008 world financial crisis, several industrialised countries followed the example of the by then United Kingdom’s government, i.e., migrants were admitted provided they have money enough to buy a property and open a sound bank account;
  • Unless you are highly skilled: another criteria used to admit migrants depends on their professional, useful capacity;
  • And unless you are “like us”: such is the case of the tens of thousands of human beings attempting to escape the horrors of another, absolutely condemnable war, the European proxy war unfolding in Ukraine. Hungarian President, Viktor Orban, referred to Ukrainians as “they look like us… they are like us.”

If migrants do not enjoy these conditions, they are immediately called “illegal,” and thus non-admitted. And those who had already arrived are being sweept away from the US and Europe.

 

Why such a race to expel migrants?

The trend to expel migrants has steadily increased in this year 2022, coincidently –or not– proxy war in Ukraine started in February, pushing millions of Ukrainian citizens to flee the horrors of this condemnable armed conflict.

All Western countries, in particular Europe, have opened their doors to those millions of migrants and refugees, to whom all sorts of humanitarian assistance are rightly provided.

In contrast, millions of other human beings are fleeing horror, looking for ways to survive and a job that allows their families and themselves to stay alive.

 

Migrants workers “dehumanised”

“Migrant workers are often dehumanised”, said the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Volker Türk, reminding that “they are human beings entitled to human rights and full protection of their human dignity”.

No one should have to surrender their human right to migrate in order to find a living wage, the UN human rights office, OHCHR said in a new report published on 16 December 2022, highlighting the importance of temporary migratory labour programmes.

The report, We wanted workers, but human beings came, published just two days ahead of the International Migrants Day, zeroes-in on schemes in operation across the Asia-Pacific region – the largest single migrant-producing region in the world.

The report points to just some of the abuse, discrimination, and inhuman treatment of migrants: as part of some seasonal schemes, migrants are expected to work on Saturdays and Sundays, leaving them no time to attend religious services.

Migrant domestic workers in other States have reported being told they would be fired, if they prayed or fasted while at work.

Some migrant construction workers report receiving sub-standard medical care in clinics provided by their employers.

 

Enforced disappearances

Migrants are particularly at risk during what are often arduous journeys just trying to reach their destination, warn UN-appointed independent human rights experts.

The experts stressed that States must coordinate in “preventing the yearly disappearances of thousands of migrants en route.”

Citing International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates, they said that over 35,000 migrants have died or disappeared since 2014.

“However, there are no exact figures on the proportion of enforced disappearances in cases involving State agents or people acting with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of countries.”

But information indicates that most disappearances occur “during detention or deportation proceedings or because of migrant smuggling or trafficking,” said the UN-appointed human rights experts.

 

Blanket refusals, detention, expulsions

They blamed States’ rigid border management and migration policies for many disappearances, citing policies that include “blanket refusals of entry; criminalization of migration; and mandatory, automatic, or extensive use of immigration detention; and arbitrary expulsions.”

“These factors encourage migrants to take more dangerous routes, to put their lives in the hands of smugglers and to expose themselves to a higher risk of human rights violations and enforced disappearance”, the experts spelt out.

 

Misleading promises

Every year, millions leave their countries under temporary labour migration programmes that promise economic benefits for destination countries and development dividends to countries of origin.

The report details how in many cases temporary work schemes impose a range of “unacceptable human rights restrictions.”

It highlights how migrant workers are “often forced to live in overcrowded and unsanitary housing, unable to afford nutritious food, denied adequate healthcare, and face prolonged and sometimes mandatory separation from their families.”

Moreover, policies that exclude them from government support in some countries put migrants at a disproportionate risk of COVID-19 infection, the report says.

“They should not be expected to give up their rights in return for being able to migrate for work, however crucial it is for them and their families, and for the economies of their countries of origin and destination”, Türk underscored.

 

Are all the “other migrants” illegal?

One day a year –18 December–, the world is expected to observe the International Migrants Day.

On it, the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, stated that today, over 80% of the world’s migrants cross borders in a safe and orderly fashion.

On this International Migrants Day, “we reflect on the lives of the over 280 million people who left their country in the universal pursuit of opportunity, dignity, freedom, and a better life,” he said.

“Today, over 80 per cent of the world’s migrants cross borders in a safe and orderly fashion.” This migration is a powerful driver of economic growth, dynamism, and understanding.

Over the past eight years, at least 51,000 migrants have died – and thousands more have disappeared. Behind each number is a human being – a sister, brother, daughter, son, mother, or father.

“Migrant rights are human rights” the United Nations chief reminded. “They must be respected without discrimination – and irrespective of whether their movement is forced, voluntary, or formally authorised.”

 

Is there a ‘migration crisis’?

Guterres also highlighted the urgent need to expand and diversify rights-based pathways for migration – to advance the Sustainable Development Goals and address labour market shortages.

“There is no migration crisis; there is a crisis of solidarity.” Today and every day, let us safeguard our common humanity and secure the rights and dignity of all.”

 

How many migrants?

In recent years, conflict, insecurity, and the effects of climate change, war and conflict have heavily contributed to the forced movement whether within countries or across borders.

In 2020 over 281 million people were international migrants while over 59 million people were internally displaced by the end of 2021.

The UN underlines that regardless of the reasons that compel people to move, migrants and displaced people represent some of the most vulnerable and marginalised groups in society…,

… and they are often exposed to abuse and exploitation, have limited access to essential services including healthcare, and are faced with xenophobic attacks and stigma fueled by misinformation.

On the other hand, many migrant workers are often in temporary, informal, or unprotected jobs, which exposes them to a greater risk of insecurity, layoffs, and poor working conditions.

“Due to persistent lack of safe and regular migration pathways, millions continue to take perilous journeys each year. Since 2014 more than 50,000 migrants have lost their lives on migratory routes across the world.”

Despite all the above, and of all World and International conventions, declarations, and commitments which have been adopted by all States, reality shows that some migrants are more equal –and human– than others.